Re: What about this grammar?

> I'm not seeing much upside to allowing literal control characters not
> permitted in XML in the grammar via some additional notational
> mechanism.

I wasn’t proposing an additional notational mechanism. I can literally
type a U+0013 character into a string in my editor. I can save that ixml
file. (I used ^S because I was sure that a literal Control-S character
wouldn’t survive email transmission; also because my editor renders a
literal Control-S as a single character marked by two glyphs, ^ followed
by S.)

Anyway. I can create an iXML file that has a literal U+0013 in it.

If that’s forbidden, that’s fine. If it’s allowed but not required, I
think that introduces an interoperability issue. If it’s required,
that’s kind of a challenge because my parser builds its grammar from the
XML representation, so it has no way to get from ixml text to parser
without XML in the middle. (I can work around this problem with some
clever escaping, but I’m not going to bother if it’s forbidden :-) )

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

--
Norm Tovey-Walsh
Saxonica